Sometimes, I feel like I'm repeating myself over and over, and have to type the same thing to these guys over.

I'm not sure if they're being obtuse, or what. I'm giving them the benifit of the doubt though, and still think they can learn from this. It's scary to think how people accept just a "little more" gov't into their lives, or the lives of others each day.

As they say, you give the government an inch, and they'll take a mile. I'd think that all these supposed "conservatives" on here would know the dangers of too much gov't, and to keep it contrained with the chains of the constitution.

Yup...

I don't give a rats behind who marries whom. The government has no business in the marriage business. Just my humble opinion, of course, but I see the "slippery slope", just from a different viewpoint than most.

I value marriage, and at my church, it's between a (single) man and a (single) woman. But if two guys, two gals, or one man and five women, want to enter into a personal contract, I don't really GAS. As long as they maintain their lawfulness and their commitments to one another, what business is it of the fed.gov

Now, when some weirdo wants to try and sell me that a 13-year old or a goat can enter into a contract, we'll have a problem. Until then, I see no reason for federal intervention.

__________________"I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration, somehow you're not patriotic. We should stand up and say we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration." - Hillary Clinton, 2003

Anarchy does not equate to freedom, it seems you're comparing apples to oranges now. There needs to be laws written (IE the BOR) to preserving individual's rights. How can you be free in an anarchy without someone dedicated to enforcing the law?

Anarchy is the epitome of freedom

an·ar·chy/ˈanərkē/Noun:

1.A state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority.

2.Absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal.

Anarchy, by definition, HAS no law. Let that marinate for a second.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OctoberRust

I'm not even sure how you walked this topic over to the topic of anarchism vs a constitutional republic. You're making this more complicated than it really is. I'll give you a simple rule of thumb to follow, if you're truly for freedom.

Government = protecting the individual's liberties, and bringing justice to those who harm others.

I don't see that here.

gov·ern·ment/ˈgəvər(n)mənt/Noun:

1.The governing body of a nation, state, or community.

2.The system by which a nation, state, or community is governed.

In case you didn't notice, YOU'RE going from a constitutional republic to an anarchy, by definitions alone.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OctoberRust

Some actions that harm - Rape, Murder, Theft, Fraud, all carry a victim.

Gay sex between two or more consenting adults does not carry a victim, it may offend someone, but being offended is a given in a free society, and one must have thicker skin, or move to a nanny state.

Yes, it does, and it starts with those who practice it. Yes, you'll argue that you're free to harm yourself if you want to. Ok, fine, then, destroy yourself. Who cares? But to say you can get married and be seen by our children as something that is good and should be emulated, NO. Gay marriage is a way of society saying, "You're good for our society and we want you to raise children to be like you." HELL no.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OctoberRust

Another action that does not carry a victim is owning a gun. Whatever gun that may be, from a fully automatic AK-47 to a musket, does NOT carry a victim. In fact this one is written in the constitution itself since it can serve as a check and balance to the gov't. This does not carry a victim, therefor in a free society, it should not be regulated.

Another action that does not carry a victim would be using alcohol or drugs. You can argue one using alcohol that gets abusive or doesn't feed their children because of their habbits carries a victim, but as we know, that's child abuse/neglect, and there's already a law against that. Enforce that law that protects victims, instead of a law that just chips away at our freedoms!

None of what you mentioned are psychiatric, sexual disorders.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OctoberRust

Bewareowner, the list could go on. I'm not sure if you're just being obtuse at this point, or what. If you're not for a gov't that protects the individual's rights, you can just come out and say it, instead of comparing liberty to anarchism, which again is apples to oranges. You certainly wouldn't be the first person on GT that is bothered by people having the right to do whatever, as long as their actions do not carry a victim.

Feel good laws that supposedly "prevent" crime from happening such as gun laws, drug laws, or laws against homosexuality/poly marriage has no place in a truly free society.

Only in an anarchy do people have the "right to do whatever they want". As long as there is government, there WILL be restrictions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OctoberRust

PS - wouldn't you think your avatar (the gadsden flag) represents the very thing I, and others are saying? It's a simple message usually presented to the gov't saying "DON'T TREAD ON ME". That should also apply with you toward other individuals. If homosexuals are doing their thing and aren't molesting/touching you/your loved ones/ANYONE, you shouldn't have an issue with it. Once they TREAD on you, then you,I, everyone should have a problem, and that's when the rattler strikes.

A little history on the Gadsden. "Join or Die". Nothing individualistic about this idea. You don't know what you're talking about.

__________________
Free men have arms; slaves do not. Tyrants mistrust the people, hence they deprive them of arms.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

No, it's not a broad brush. Society is made up of individuals and if you want to live a certian way then YOU are free to form a group on private land and live as you choose. Otherwise, mind your business. My right and that of others to be left alone as long as I'm not doing harm to others is basic and I will defend it from ignorant bigots like you.

Yes, we're made up of individuals, individuals who all interact and affect others in one way or another. If you want to not affect anyone with what you do, form a group on private land and live as you choose.

Since we're both sticking to our ideals, that makes us both bigots. I'm not ignorant, however, I have research to back what I'm saying up.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlavallee

You are free to hate who you want as is anyone else but don't push your narrow minded views on anyone else. Spew your hate all you want but if you act on it to limit someone else's freedom, they have every right to defend themselves.

You are no better than a liberal. You want it your way and nobody else's freedoms matter.

I don't hate anybody, and I love to see you drank the gay go-go juice. You just HAVE to say "bigot", "hate", now you're just missing "homophobe" and "compassion". I'm sure you won't be able to help yourself sooner or later. It seems that you're very unwilling to see things from another point of view, and you have the gall to call me narrow minded. Oh, the hypocrisy is exhilirating!

__________________
Free men have arms; slaves do not. Tyrants mistrust the people, hence they deprive them of arms.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

Yes, we're made up of individuals, individuals who all interact and affect others in one way or another. If you want to not affect anyone with what you do, form a group on private land and live as you choose.

Great, then you should have no objection to gay marriage as long as they live in their own home on their own land after they get married.

Ain't freedom grand! Here I thought this gay marriage thing was going to be difficult to reach a consensus on.

Great, then you should have no objection to gay marriage as long as they live in their own home on their own land after they get married.

Ain't freedom grand! Here I thought this gay marriage thing was going to be difficult to reach a consensus on.

Randy

Marriage in itself is a public institution, not a private one. By going on private land and doing as they wish, I mean that they make up their own laws and rules that only they are affected by and nobody else has to recognize.

__________________
Free men have arms; slaves do not. Tyrants mistrust the people, hence they deprive them of arms.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

2.Absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal.

Anarchy, by definition, HAS no law. Let that marinate for a second.

I don't see that here.

gov·ern·ment/ˈgəvər(n)mənt/Noun:

1.The governing body of a nation, state, or community.

2.The system by which a nation, state, or community is governed.

In case you didn't notice, YOU'RE going from a constitutional republic to an anarchy, by definitions alone.

Yes, it does, and it starts with those who practice it. Yes, you'll argue that you're free to harm yourself if you want to. Ok, fine, then, destroy yourself. Who cares? But to say you can get married and be seen by our children as something that is good and should be emulated, NO. Gay marriage is a way of society saying, "You're good for our society and we want you to raise children to be like you." HELL no.

None of what you mentioned are psychiatric, sexual disorders.

Only in an anarchy do people have the "right to do whatever they want". As long as there is government, there WILL be restrictions.

A little history on the Gadsden. "Join or Die". Nothing individualistic about this idea. You don't know what you're talking about.

It shows you do not understand government, and have never done any real studies on it. Get back to us once you find an Anarchy that realistically provides more freedom than a constitutional republic. I don't even think freetown of Christinia does.

As for the rest, you're throwing insults out because you're called out. At this point you're too embarrassed you've been schooled on how liberties and freedom works.

As a very wise man once said "You can't see the forest from the trees, and you can't smell your own **** on your knees." Stands true to you.

It shows you do not understand government, and have never done any real studies on it. Get back to us once you find an Anarchy that realistically provides more freedom than a constitutional republic. I don't even think freetown of Christinia does.

As for the rest, you're throwing insults out because you're called out. At this point you're too embarrassed you've been schooled on how liberties and freedom works.

As a very wise man once said "You can't see the forest from the trees, and you can't smell your own **** on your knees." Stands true to you.

Who am I throwing out insults to?

__________________
Free men have arms; slaves do not. Tyrants mistrust the people, hence they deprive them of arms.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

2.Absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal.

Anarchy, by definition, HAS no law. Let that marinate for a second.

.....

The concept of anarchy is that everyone is free to do as he or she likes. That includes getting together and killing or driving out anyone the majority object to enough.

The concept of being free to do whatever you want has virtually no relationship to freedom as in a free state. There it means freedom from despotism or oppression by government and the "freedoms" of bills of rights are effectively precise constraints on government oppression of its citizens. The only simple freedom is the freedom of religion. The others are freedoms to take action against the government by petitioning, speaking against the government, organizing resistance, keeping and bearing arms and so on. Who or what else other than a government would have the power to prevent these freedoms? Who or what do we need to defend our freedoms against?

October Rust and QNman, dead right!

In general, if I am to be forced to choose, I would settle for polygamy over homosexual marriage.

Beware Owner,
Your nonsense about homosexuality is just that. Homosexuals, male or female, are no more likely to be pedophiles than heterosexuals. Pedophiles are pedophiles and can be attracted to boys or girls or both. For choice, I would execute them.

As to whether homosexuality is a choice or not, homosexuality can be found in all species of domesticated animals and birds and probably in all wild ones as well, but the observation is harder there. Animals don't make "choices" of this kind - they just do what is in their nature to do. When it comes to humans, most humans want a loving relationship and that applies to homosexuals as much as to heterosexuals. Why would any one who actually had the choice choose to be homosexual when it reduces the chance of finding a partner by such a large amount? When the facts contradict your theories you need to re-work your theories to fit the facts.

As to whether homosexuality is a choice or not, homosexuality can be found in all species of domesticated animals and birds and probably in all wild ones as well, but the observation is harder there. Animals don't make "choices" of this kind - they just do what is in their nature to do.
Engish

That is correct. And since homosexuality occurs as part of nature, that makes it "natural".

That is correct. And since homosexuality occurs as part of nature, that makes it "natural".

Yes, entirely natural and it seems to be amongst the things that can go wrong with the genetic or developmental system without significant detriment to the species. It is hard to see how it is advantgeous to the individual or the species but that does not mean that it does not have some species benefit to have non reproductive members. For individuals with the consciousness to want children of their own and for parents with homosexual children it is a considerable sadness.

I'm curious how people see this side of the coin: Being married, in it's current traditional form (1 man, 1 woman) allows you certain benefits. One of these is Healthcare benefits. I am allowed to have my wife on my insurance plan through work, because they allow it. In the case of my employer, they also allow 'domestic partners' to have this same option. Many businesses do not, because they don't view a domestic partnership/civil union the same as a marriage. Should gay marriage/poly laws get passed, are employers now OBLIGATED to offer those benefits to everyone?

As an aside, I personally believe that the institution of marriage is a religious one. If one gets married within the confines of a church (or by some form of clergy) before God (Allah, w/e), that is different than a 'civil union' (outside the church). I think someone's freedom to engage in a gay/poly marriage is one that should be afforded by the church (only if it so chooses!), not the gov't. It is also none of my business, but I retain the right to think that it's morally wrong, should I so choose. I think anyone in a civil union should be afforded the same tax breaks, etc that a married couple gets. I was brought up in a northern Baptist church, my dad was a deacon for many years, and both of my BILs are/were preachers. It has taken me a long time to come to those conclusions about how freedoms (should) apply to us, since you get indoctrinated to certain ways of believing when brought up in that atmosphere. Lastly, by my own above definitions, my marriage would technically be a civil union since I was married by a judge in a courthouse and not by a clergymen.

Last edited by kensb2; 10-03-2012 at 12:12..
Reason: mental stuttering

If a man wants 6 angry wives instead of one that let him have it. Heck, women can have as many husbands too....I foresee no good coming from either so I am happy with my one wife.

__________________
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials." — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788